Obama Defies Constitution, Republicans And The American People

On TV last night our illustrious President told the nation and the world that he will ignore the laws outlined in the Constitution and make changes to our immigration and deportation laws on his own, bypassing the governing body that by law is responsible for immigration. President Obama not only says he has the authority to do so but that he "cannot wait anymore." And in doing so he has seriously violated his oath of office and broken the law.

For years President Obama told the American people he does not have the Constitutional authority to do what he did last night. (He was correct.) Suddenly, after his policies were slammed by the American people in the mid-term elections and the Republicans very decisively won control of the House and Senate, President Obama somehow decided that he does have the authority to change immigration law to suit his own agenda and announced that he will do just that today. (He offered no explanation as to why he didn't have the authority for 5 years but suddenly has it now.)

President Obama said our immigration system is broken. And he's correct. But there is one main reason it is broken and that's because no President in the last 50 years has really enforced the laws of the land. The border has been open the entire time against the wishes of the American people and in violation of the law. That's the reason we have so many illegals in the country today. (And I don't care what the whiners say about them not being "illegal" because that's exactly what they are. They are in the country without authorization and broke the laws of the land by coming here. That makes them aliens who are here illegally. Period.)

Our immigration system is broken because the various Presidents, from Reagan all the way to Obama, have done nothing to secure the border and effectively enforce the laws as written. We may need reform to make the legal immigration process easier but if we don't enforce the laws we already have what makes anyone think we'll enforce new laws?

The President says his administration has deported more illegal immigrants than any other President. But that's simply untrue. What Obama has done is change the reporting system. Until Obama took office the only deportations of illegals reported were those who were caught living inside the United States, were arrested and tried and deported by court order. President Obama, being the slick politician that he is, changed the reporting procedures to include any and every person stopped at the border and returned immediately. That made his numbers jump even though the numbers are bogus. But it made him look good in the eyes of his followers. I know several very intelligent liberals who believe Obama's numbers even though the evidence of his deception is there.

President Obama says he's deporting criminals first. What that means is that he's deporting illegals who get arrested for criminal acts, or who are discovered to have long criminal records in their own country, ahead of the average person who sneaks across the border and doesn't do anything illegal while he's here. But since sneaking across the border is illegal the are all criminals.

Obama also says that our immigration system "yanks children from the arms of their parents." While that's a heart tugging visual,the fact is that the only reason that might happen is if the parents are deported but the children are allowed to stay. And if I recall correctly, the President himself is the one that made that legal by signing his "Dream Act" Executive Order that allows children to stay regardless of the status of their parents. The Dream Act yanks the parents away from the children. And that's because of President Obama himself.

President Obama said last night that his order wasn't amnesty. He said what we have now is amnesty. Let's take a look at that. Merriam-Webster defines amnesty as "a decision that a group of people will not be punished or that a group of prisoners will be allowed to go free." By very definition what he's doing with his Executive Order is granting temporary amnesty. Remember, this is a "Constitutional law professor." I think I'll send him a Merriam-Webster dictionary for Christmas...

So how did the President violate the Constitution and break the law, you might ask. The President does have the right and authority of prosecutorial discretion. That means he can decide in which order to prosecute and/or deport illegals based on current laws. He has the right to deport criminals before mothers and children and has the right to deports people caught for traffic violations before seeking out illegals working in a field somewhere and deporting them. That's all legal.

Where he overstepped his authority with this Executive Order is that he basically said he will not arrest, prosecute or deport any illegal for the next two years except those few for which he determines its necessary. He has chosen not to enforce the law of the land and has broadcast that to the world. But Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution requires the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” It does not say that the President can enforce some laws and ignore others and does not say he can unilaterally dismiss laws that he doesn't agree with. So in signing this order he is in violation of the Constitution.

A second way he is violating the Constitution is with his intent to issue Social Security numbers and work permits to the illegals effected by this order. The law of the land says that people who are in the country illegally are not legally permitted to work. President Obama is waiving that illegal status and giving them legal work status instead - something he does not have the authority to do.

President Obama has likened his actions to those of past Presidents, including Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. But he's misleading the public when he says that. Both Reagan and Bush went through Congress to take their immigration actions and had newly passed legislation behind their actions. President Obama has no legislation except what he's making up as he goes. His actions are in no way the same as Reagan or Bush. On that particular point he's simply lying to the people. But that's nothing new. You can keep your doctor and your health care plan, remember?

What happens now? The President has basically told Republicans "I will do what I want. Try to stop me." And short of impeachment, which I believe Obama wants to happen so he can play the race/victim card, the Republicans can either simply allow it or they can take his order apart financially. Contrary to what some conservative pundits say I believe a government shutdown, which is being discussed, would be a bad move. They need to fund the government but with specific language that disallows funding for his work permits and other portions of his order. If he can't pay for it he can't enact it. And that's where Congress has the power.

So we wait. We wait to see what the Republicans will do about President Obama's unlawful acts. The actions of the Republicans over the next few months will determine the course of the federal government for the next two years. If they sit back and complain without taking decisive action then the election might as well have gone to the Democrats. And since Boehner and McConnell don't have much of a track record for defying Obama's actions, the chances of nothing happening are good. The ball is in their court. We shall see what happens.

Will The President Cause A Constitutional Crisis?

"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Above is the oath that Barack H. Obama swore on the Bible both times he was inaugurated as President of the United States. Tonight at 8pm Eastern time, President Obama will reveal to the nation and the world whether he will live up to his oath of office to preserve and protect our Constitution or whether he will act unlawfully with Executive Orders, blatantly ignoring his oath, the Constitution and the will of the people.

Of course I'm referring to Obama's upcoming announcement of unilateral action on immigration and allowing millions of illegals to remain in the country without the approval of Congress (who alone has the Constitutional authority to regulate immigration) and the American people, the majority of which oppose what the President wants to do.

President Obama says he "can't wait any longer to act." Really? So after six years in office, during which he had a Democrat majority in the House and Senate for his first two, he now can't wait two more months until the Republicans take control to see if they will propose immigration reform? Why is that? Why is it suddenly an emergency? Are the illegals going to disappear before January? Is the world going to end before January?

While we don't know the answer to the last question we do know the answer to the first two. The reason he's pushing for this now is twofold. First of all, he wants to do it his way, without interference from Republicans. And second, he wants payback for the election. He wants to punish the Republicans and the American people for completely rejecting his policies, which he said were on the ballot. So he's going to push the envelope, maybe even hoping the Republicans will impeach him. Then he can play the race card and try to garner sympathy for the Republicans picking on the first black President of the United States.

And we all know, regardless of the facts, that the main stream media will play his game and condemn the Republicans for it. They're still not ready to admit that they've been wrong in their support for him all these years.

Constitutional scholars nationwide are saying that if he goes ahead with this it could easily lead to a Constitutional crisis. Numerous times over the last six years, in his own words, the President stated he did not have the authority to do what he is now planning to do. And Constitutional experts agree with him that he does not have that authority. Yet it seems he has decided to give himself that authority, Constitution be damned.

This lawless President is going to do whatever he wants in the next two years and it seems the Republicans are unwilling to stop him. They talk big but are they really going to do anything? We shall see. But given the fact that they reinstated Boehner and McConnell into the leadership positions my faith is dwindling. Neither have proved to be an deterrent to Obama's actions so far.

Do Our Politicians Agree With Jonathon Gruber...?

Last week several videos surfaced of economist, professor and a key architect of the Affordable Care Act, Jonathon Gruber, telling his fellow economists that the American voters are stupid. Speaking of the health care law and how it was passed, Gruber said that it was written and promoted in a deceptive way to fool the stupid voters so it would pass. He said that non-transparency to fool the American people is a benefit for politicians and that without it the Affordable Care Act would never have come into being.

Of course the Obama administration denounced Gruber as "never employed by the White House," even though the President had several meetings with Gruber concerning the bill and Gruber received hundreds of thousands of dollars in compensation for his work on the bill.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi denied knowing who Gruber is, even though in 2009 she said his review and critique of the law was wonderful.

They really do think we're stupid.

Now we have another prime example of just how stupid they think we are. Over the last couple of years the House of Representatives has passed eight different bills to build the Keystone pipeline, a project that would not only help lower energy costs but would employ tens of thousands of Americans. The Senate, under iron fisted Harry Reid, did not even consider bringing the bills to the floor for debate and a vote.

Yesterday, the Senate finally brought their own Keystone pipeline bill to the floor for a vote. Did they have a sudden change of heart about the necessity of the pipeline? Did they realize that jobs on the pipeline would be a good thing for America? Did they finally come to the understanding that bringing more oil into the country would help lower our energy costs?

No, no and no. None of the above.

Their reasoning for the bill is far more simple than that. They were trying to save the seat of one of their own.

Senator Mary Landrieu (D) LA, was up for re-election in the mid-term. In Louisiana, to win an election a candidate must garner 50% of the vote. Landrieu only got 42% of the vote while her strongest opponent, Representative Bill Cassidy (R), got 41%. A second Republican candidate received 14% of the vote which in all likelihood kept Cassidy from winning.

Landrieu now faces a runoff election in December. She is making all kinds of promises including bringing much needed jobs to Louisiana. One of her promises of jobs includes the Keystone pipeline. Hence the pipeline bill. Harry Reid wouldn't even entertain the idea of it until he saw a political use for it. Landrieu told her constituents that she would support the Keystone pipeline being built (it will flow into Louisiana) if she won re-election. Suddenly a bill on the pipeline made it to the Senate floor.

Incredibly, it was defeated by Landrieu's fellow Democrats. I guess they care more about their ideology than saving one of their own. Landrieu is poised to lose the runoff election next month. The Democrats know this. The DNC has already pulled its funding from her campaign. They say they "still care about Landrieu winning" but they're no longer going to spend money to help her do it.

Poor Mary. She can't even get the backing of her colleagues and her party. Of course, when asked why she lost her bid for a third term and why President Obama was so unpopular in Louisiana she played the sexist card and the race card, saying women and blacks have always had a difficult time in the South. Obviously that's the reason. After all, she has only been in Washington representing Louisiana for 12 years and the President has only been elected twice. Yup - sexism and racism at its worst.

Sadly shaking my head...

Obama Still Claiming ISIS Is Not Islamic

The recent beheading of Army Ranger Peter Kassig has once again focuses the world's attention on the evil that is ISIS. The Islamic terrorist group has no morals or human compassion. They fight their jihad to win regardless of what they have to do. Kidnapping and beheading Westerners, murdering women and children, executing Christians and any other people who refuse to follow them is their motus operandi. Instilling fear in the hearts of their enemies by displays of barbarism is a tactic that has worked in civilization in the past. And in some areas of the Middle East it is working today.

In a written statement President Obama addressed the nation yesterday following the release of the beheading video, calling Kassig by his adopted Muslim name. “ISIL's actions represent no faith, least of all the Muslim faith which Abdul-Rahman adopted as his own,” Obama wrote. “Today we grieve together, yet we also recall that the indomitable spirit of goodness and perseverance that burned so brightly in Abdul-Rahman Kassig, and which binds humanity together, ultimately is the light that will prevail over the darkness of ISIL.”

While I can agree that Peter Kassig seemed to be a good man who was sincerely trying to help others, I can't help but wonder why the President always seems to feel the need to defend Islam against those of us who know the truth about the politico/religious entity. The President says that ISIS is not Islam yet everything they do can be justified in the Quran. Obama has always made his love of Islam a priority in his administration even as Islam is fighting against us and killing American citizens.

An article in the news this morning says the Obama administration is now conducting a full review of the United States' hostage policy, including the payment of ransom on a case by case basis. While it's not something I have heard before, Fox News reports that "a U.S. policy on hostage negotiations signed by President Bush in 2002 states that ransoms can be paid if officials believe doing so would help gain intelligence about terror groups, but can not be paid for the sole purpose of freeing an American."

The United States had always had a policy that said they would not negotiate with terrorists. Apparently this policy was changed somewhat by the Bush administration (and I'm truly disappointed about it) and was blatantly ignored by the Obama administration in the case of Bo Bergdahl, whose release was attained by negotiating the release of five Taliban commanders from Guantanamo Bay. Three of those commanders are now fighting with ISIS.

If the Obama administration decides that paying ransom to ISIS is the answer to their hostage taking we are finished as a nation. There will be no prevention of hostage taking of Americans, not only by Islamic extremists but by any other world terrorist organization who believes the United States will pay ransom. To entertain the thought of it is simply ignorant.

In other news, it was revealed this week that President Obama had a meeting with the organizers of the Ferguson, Missouri, protests and told them to "stay on course." Once again President Obama shows his racial bias and a complete lack of leadership in a situation involving a black man and a white law enforcement officer. President Obama's statement several years ago: "I don't have all the facts but the police acted stupidly," echoes in my head when ha wades into individual cases and voices his opinions even before the case has been completely investigated.

When you open a dialogue with "I don't have all the facts but..." you're telling the world that you have already decided the facts of the case without knowing what they are. That's no different than the Ferguson protesters, the governor of Missouri, and Al Sharpton calling for the arrest and prosecution of Darren Wilson before the case has even been investigated. I would like the President of the United States to be above such emotional involvement in a local case but he just doesn't seem to be able to help himself. His comment "If I had a son he would look like Trayvon," also put his opinion on the case on public record before the case was investigated.

(The worst part of the Trayvon Martin case was when George Zimmerman was acquitted and Attorney General Eric Holder opened a hot line and advertised nation wide for any and all information that he could use to open a civil case against Zimmerman. What a pathetic and shameful show of racial bias by our "activist" Attorney General that was.)

The President of the United States is supposed to be a person who handles the big picture without involving himself (with blatant ignorance) in individual cases of police work. If he had waited for the Professor Gates case to be fully investigated then, after he had all the facts and determinations from the police department, made a statement that he thought the police did something wrong I could respect that opinion based on him having all the facts. But he likes to jump in prematurely and pronounce how he feels about certain cases even though he is ignorant of the facts. And that is unbecoming of the Office of the President.

I guess failed leadership is to be expected from a President who negotiates (weakly) with Iran over their nuclear program, pretending they won't attain a weapon, calls ISIS the "junior varsity team," meets with illegal aliens outside the White House and wants to reward them for breaking our laws, and gets caught in lie after lie but then lies about the lies he told. Nothing the man does surprises me anymore - unless it's something good for the country. But that hasn't happened anytime recently.

The Republicans Are Going To Do What???

On November 4th the American people sent a clear message to President Obama, the Democrats and the Republicans. That message was "We're fed up with ineffective leadership in Washington and we don't like the direction in which the country it moving. It's time for a change. It's time to let the Republicans try to fix things."

While Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid tried to spin that into "The American people said they want us to work together," anyone with a functioning brain got the message - particularly those Democrats who were voted out of office.

The Republicans heard the call. Immediately following the election they set about organizing their new agenda for 2015. Their first order of business was to decide who was going to lead the House and Senate come January. And that's where they began to show they didn't get the message after all.

In two moves that stunned many Republicans nationwide, the House and Senate once again elected John Boehner and Mitch McConnell to lead their respective houses. Neither of these fine gentlemen was desired as their majority leader by the people - the ones who voted for a change. Neither has the trust of the majority of the voters. Both are seen as weak by many.

They had their first shot at making serious and productive changes in the way they do things and they blew it. Strike one.

So what's their next project to prove nothing has changed? President Obama has promised to sign an Executive Order giving the equivalent of amnesty to just over 4 million illegals in this country "if Congress doesn't act quickly enough." He has had six years to work on immigration reform, including his first two years when the Democrats held all three branches of government. Instead of working on his reform he chose to push his piece of garbage highly questionable health care bill instead.

Now, with only 8 weeks before Republicans take over the House and Senate, the President insists that immigration be done before the end of the year because....  well, because after January 20th he won't have as much negotiating power as he currently has with a Senate majority.

The President has basically threatened the Republicans. He is promising to sign an act that many Constitutional scholars believe is unconstitutional and could lead to a constitutional crisis. And the President doesn't seem to be worried about it at all. In fact, he's all but challenging the GOP to stop him.

So what are the Republicans planning to do about it? One of their ideas is to institute another government shut down. You read that correctly. There is a temporary spending bill and a long term spending bill being created right now in the House. Republicans are actually talking amongst themselves about not signing a spending bill at all, allowing a government shutdown to prevent any funding for Obama's amnesty decree.

The Republicans lost big numbers because of the government shutdown just last year. Even though it was caused as much by the Democrats as the Republicans, Republicans took the brunt of negative public opinion because of President Obama, AFGE, and a liberal main stream media. Republicans were blamed and the people believed it. (That actually tells you how fed up the American people are with the Democrats since the GOP swept the mid-terms this year.) So now their first official act will be to shut the government down again? Really? Whose brilliant idea was that?

From all outward appearances it seems nothing will change in the new Congress come January. John Boehner and Mitch McConnell are starting off their leadership with bad ideas. They'll have the ability to push legislation through to the President's desk but if said legislation is bad are we gaining anything?

The American people need to keep a close eye on Washington - not only after January but between now and then. The President is working to make changes that could e detrimental to our nation and the Republican leadership is working to effect the same ol', same 'ol. We voted for change and action. If the Republicans aren't going to deliver we need to send them a clear message that they too can be replaced!

Muslims In The House?

Some people in this country are in an uproar once again because they're just not happy with the First Amendment. Oh, they like when it allows them to say whatever they want to say about whatever topic they choose. They just don't like it because the amendment gives that same right to everyone - even those with whom they disagree.

They get angry because people they don't like can say things that go against their core beliefs. They tend to believe that only like-minded people should have the right to free speech and that certain other groups should not. They believe that if the beliefs of a certain group are beliefs they don't share that that group should not have the right to express those beliefs publicly.

You probably think I'm talking about liberals. And it's true - they do fit the mold of everything I've said. But in this case I'm once again talking about Republicans and conservatives. 

The United States House of Representatives opens each session with prayer. It's rather surprising really, considering how hard the Democrats have been working to remove every aspect of God from every aspect of the government. But it is a tradition as old as our nation and so far it hasn't changed in the House.

What has changed is that a Muslim cleric was invited last week to offer the morning prayer. Republicans and conservatives nationwide are going crazy, denouncing the act of allowing a Muslim to pray before Congress. Many are saying it should not be allowed - that Muslims have no business orating the opening prayer in the House of Representatives. And while I'm not thrilled about it - I must disagree that it should not be allowed.

Like it or not we have two Muslim representatives in the House. The First Amendment allows that if other religious denominations are represented by a spiritual leader for the opening prayer then the Muslim representatives have the same right to representation. If a Muslim cleric prayed every day or every other day or once a week it would be different. But that's not happening. It seems to happen about once a year. That's not unreasonable. What's unreasonable is for any American to want to prevent it from happening. The First Amendment applies to all whether we like it or not.

Now - let's jump over a few blocks to the Washington National Cathedral. On Friday, the Cathedral Church of Saint Peter and Saint Paul in the City and Diocese of Washington, better known as the Washington National Cathedral, held its "first-ever recitation of weekly Muslim prayers" in the iconic Episcopal sanctuary. 

The historic event was said to be a chance to hear leaders of both faiths call for religious unity in the face of extremist violence and hate. The Muslim leader 'called on Muslims, Christians and others to come together and make “common cause” in the fight against extremists who appropriate Islam."

“We come to this cathedral with sensitivity and humility but keenly aware that it is not a time for platitudes, because mischief is threatening the world,” Rasool said. “The challenge for us today is to reconstitute a middle ground of good people . . . whose very existence threatens extremism.”

Now see - I'm OK with that part. If American Muslims want to finally begin fighting Islamic extremism we need to support them 100%. What I'm not OK with is the fact that a Christian church allowed people to pray to someone other than the one true God inside their church. The Bible is very clear about who God is and He is not Allah. 

Reverend Franklin Graham, son of renowned evangelist Billy Graham, spoke about it on Thursday, prior to the event.

“It’s sad to see a church open its doors to the worship of anything other than the One True God of the Bible who sent His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, to earth to save us from our sins,” said Graham. “Jesus was clear when He said, ‘I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me’ (John 14:6).”

My church has Christian services in different languages, including Burmese and an African service. We invite Muslims in the area to attend our services if they wish (and some do.) But we do not and would not allow Muslims to have a service to pray to Allah.

And that's not bigoted, racist, or any other term one might want to attach to it. It's simple fact. And contrary to the situation in the House of Representatives, Muslims have every right to practice their religion but do not have the right to pray wherever they wish, particularly in a Christian church.

If it was up to me I would have hosted the Muslims for the event of dialogue against Islamic extremism but I would have not turned it into a Muslim prayer service. It would have been a civic meeting. If both groups wanted to open with a simple prayer that could be permissible but I would have tried to avoid that as well in the name of fairness to both groups. After all - it would not be polite to invite Muslims to a meeting in your church if you make them sit through your prayer without allowing them the same privilege unless you arranged that ahead of time and they agreed.

Anything that religious leaders in this country can do to get American Muslims to finally step up and publicly denounce extremism is a positive step. God knows it's something that's been long coming. If that includes Christians working side by side with Muslim leaders then so be it. That can be accomplished without Christians praying in a mosque and without Muslims praying in Christian churches.

I wonder if the Muslims have a meeting on the same topic at a local mosque if their Christian guests will be allowed to open with a Christian prayer service? Anyone want to make a bet?

Shaking My Head In Wonder...

This one is going to irritate some and will downright piss others off. Some will be able to discuss their differences with me, some won't. Some will probably even boycott me. So be it. I tell it like I see it.

I read an article on Facebook today about a Walmart store in small town, Ohio, that was successfully petitioned by Muslim students at Miami University (of Ohio) to begin selling halal meats in their store so Muslims in the local area could find halal meats that conform to their religious beliefs. The local Walmart store complied with the petition and began selling the halal meats. Some "conservatives" on Facebook went absolutely crazy.

The article explained very well that this was a decision made by one store to accommodate local customers - a wise business decision if you ask me. But people became irate, as you can read from the comments copied directly from the thread (without names, of course). I didn't edit any of them...

THey already bowed to HALAL meats! Off my shopping list!

I AM A CHRISTIAN, I DEMAND FROM WALL MART THAT I WANT MASS EVERY SUNDAY AID IN ALL WALL MART'S.OTHERWISE WE ARE GOING TO BOY COTE WALL MART FOR THE NEXT 3 MONTH'S.GET IT,YOU WILL NOT SURVIVE WHID OUT THE CHRISTIANS...

I think its just certain walmarts I work at wal mart and so far we aren't selling the meat if I ever see it in my store it will be my last day I will walk out right then

I shop threw Amazon and gave up on Walmart years ago.

Before everybody gets up in arms about this article.Has anybody cared to see if this article is credible or not?

The ones near me also do this, They sell it in a separate section. Just like the pricey Market Districts by Giant Eagle.

good we can behead the cashier if she to slow

ugly women cover they faces super, no more ugly fat chicks because they covered up

If this is what Walmart is going to do to appease muslims, than I'm going to pull my support of Walmart and shop somewhere else. Good-Bye Walmart!

instead of the hill-billies at Wal+Mart we are going to see Camel Jockie memes XD

Butt kissing Wal-Mart. Guess they'll find out how many white people don't like having Muslim cult beliefs shoved down their throat. There are some other great places to shop. They aren't as cheap as they used to be anyway. We will be spending our money at Dillons. Hy-Vee, Dollar Store, anywhere else.

BOYCOTTING Walmart. Hope their HOLIDAY sales hit the basement floor.

BY, By by Wallie World!

I finally had to respond: How easy it is to turn Americans against themselves. This article is about one store in one town in one state yet so many people on here are ready to write off Walmart for it. Just as they want to write off Home Depot for holding a training class at a store in Dearborn, Michigan, whose population is about half Muslim now. SMH

And I was attacked... which was the basis for this post.

Person who will remain unnamed: Glen - if you are to stupid to know that if they got it in one town it will spread. Wal-Mart has buckled under in this town and it will spread. Sam Walton would turn over in his grave. He was a good man and a wonderful Christian.

I rarely get irritated when people on Facebook attack me because many people are brave in cyber space - even if they're misguided, misinformed or just plain ignorant. So it was that I had to respond to the attack, but politely.

To "unnamed person..."  - that would be "too" stupid. If you're going to insult me at least use proper grammar. 

Second - Walmart sells kosher products for Jews. Don't believe me? Check out their supply of Hebrew National Hot dogs and/or Vlassic Kosher Dill Pickles. Is it OK with you for Walmart to violate the First Amendment of some Americans (that would be Muslims) because you don't like their religious beliefs? Really? The First Amendment protects everyone - even you.

Third - I doubt you speak with authority for Sam Walton. If he was a Christian (and I'm not doubting that he was) he would understand that the Bible says we are to love all people and treat them as we would treat ourselves - with respect and dignity. So don't play the Christian card on me. Christians do not hate.

Selling halal meats in this store was a decision made by the local manager. Because of your hatred you want to decide how the First Amendment is applied - to select groups approved by you. And who cares if Walmart nationwide decides to sell halal? You are not being forced buy it. You're not being forced to shop there if it means that much to you. But you know what you could do right now? Not shop in that one store. How simple is that?

Oh - and please don't try to insult me by calling me a liberal or something. A little research will show you I'm a very conservative Christian. And I happen to believe in the rule of law and the Constitution rather than fanaticism.

Have a nice day.

I understand people's anger. I really do. What I don't understand is their demand to enforce the First Amendment only according to their own religious and/or political views without regard for the fact that the First Amendment not only allows Muslims to be American citizens but protects their right to worship as they choose. It also protects (and lawfully demands) the right of Walmart or any other business/corporation to provide goods and services to people of all faiths. Do they really want to prohibit corporations like Walmart from meeting the demands of their customers based on religious beliefs? What happens if some evangelical Christian demands the removal of decorative candles that depict Catholic symbols? What happens if Christians in general demand the removal of Jewish foods and items? Are the prepared to take it that far or will the only discriminate against Muslims?

Liberals in recent years have been known for wanting to curtail free speech with which they happen to disagree. Yet here are professed conservatives wanting to do the same thing.  ??

These "conservatives" who claim to be "Christians" don't seem to have the whole Christian thing down. At least one "Christian" in the comments wanted to demand Mass every Sunday in the store. Setting the stupidity of the demand itself aside, (since Muslims aren't demanding their religious services be held in the store) some Christians don't believe Catholics are Christians, therefore bringing up another problem. In their world who gets to decide who is an "acceptable Christian" and who is not? Do you understand where I'm coming from with this? How fare do you really want to take this absurdity?

The bottom line is this - if you want to boycott Walmart because one store in Ohio decided to stock some items requested by Muslim customers in their store that is absolutely your right. If you think vilifying Walmart in the name of Jesus is valid then in my opinion you are misguided. Jesus wouldn't care one way or another if Walmart sold halal meats to Muslim customers. Jesus taught love and understanding of others. Muslims need to eat too. 

I really don't think Sam Walton would care either. Business is business.

Last week in Kroger I bought a can of coffee that came from Guatemala. Many of the illegal immigrants that are crossing the border are coming from Guatemala. We'd better boycott Kroger for selling that coffee! After all - no store should be selling coffee from a country that doesn't follow our beliefs and way of life. Oh, wait...